THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 15, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 8:31 a.m. [ET], in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The meeting began in camera, and we will now continue with the public meeting.
I would like to go around the table and have my fellow senators introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Carignan: Senator Carignan from the Mille Isles division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette [Innu-Aimun spoken] from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Quebec.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome all those who are following our deliberations across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 1, 2023, which are in your bundle. Are there any questions or amendments to the minutes?
Does anyone want to move the following motion:
That the minutes of Thursday, June 1, 2023, be adopted.
Senator Forest moves the motion. Does it please you, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Motion carried.
The next item on the agenda is the report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan.
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, will now join the meeting as a witness.
Also with us in the room is Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security, and Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate.
As usual, this will be followed by a question period. I believe Senator Tannas will present the report.
Senator Tannas, the floor is yours.
[English]
Hon. Scott Tannas: Colleagues, I have the honour to present the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee’s sixth report, which includes recommendations tied to the Centre Block rehabilitation and other Long Term Vision and Plan projects. As you’ve all received a copy of this report, I won’t go into the details about all the updates, but I would like to highlight a few things.
First is the renaming of what is now known as Block 2. The subcommittee met on May 9 to review the options for the renaming of Block 2, which is a collection of 11 buildings located within a city block that faces Parliament Hill. Senators will recall that last June, CIBA approved that an eastern office tower that will be developed on Block 2 — the eastern office tower on the corner where the Terry Fox statue sits now — will be a Senate-controlled building in the end state. That building will include senators’ office units and meeting rooms. It will include a Senate business entrance that will be part of the tunnel loop and that will connect all the buildings on Parliament Hill and Wellington Street.
As we move into the design phase of the Block 2 redevelopment program, the subcommittee felt it was important to brand our building — our portion of the Block 2 redevelopment project — now so that it’s clearly identified that it is the Senate building. With that in mind, your subcommittee proposes that CIBA advise Public Services and Procurement Canada that the eastern tower of Block 2 be immediately renamed the Senate Office Complex. I won’t attempt the French version of it, but there is a French version as well.
That’s the first recommendation.
The second issue — everybody’s favourite — is that we’re going to have one last chat about self-contained washrooms. Last fall, the subcommittee reported to CIBA on a joint decision on the House of Commons to use the term “self-contained washroom unit” for washrooms that can be used by all persons in the Centre Block and Parliament Welcome Centre. Our recommendation today is to extend this design concept and the terminology to all future Long Term Vision and Plan projects.
With that in mind, your subcommittee recommends that CIBA advise PSPC that all future Long Term Vision and Plan redevelopment and rehabilitation programs include self‑contained washroom units as a functional requirement for all washrooms.
Finally, I’ll chat about infrastructure around hybrid and virtual sittings. The subcommittee was advised that the House of Commons is proceeding with the installation of the necessary infrastructure to ensure disaster recovery business continuity in Centre Block, including planning for the possibility of virtual or hybrid proceedings. This is a future-proofing measure that we have been advised will not require any additional funding, as it is already part of the scope of work for the Centre Block rehabilitation.
With that in mind, your subcommittee recommends that CIBA advise PSPC that the Senate Chamber in the Centre Block be equipped with the necessary infrastructure to support the possibility of virtual or hybrid proceedings as a disaster recovery business continuity measure to future-proof the Senate and ensure that it can continue to meet without interruption.
I’d be happy to answer any questions. I’m accompanied by the Director General of Property Services, Josée Labelle. Other members of the team are in the room also.
Should I move the report now or wait until after questions?
The Chair: We’ll wait until after questions.
Senator Plett: I have raised this question at the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee meeting a few times, and I’ll raise it again more as a point of observation rather than as a question or even expecting a change. As I said yesterday in the Senate, why don’t we call a spade a spade every so often instead of skirting around issues. For the life of me, I don’t know why we have to call a washroom a “self-contained washroom unit.” Why can’t we just call it what it is — a washroom?
There are reasons why we’re doing this, and they have nothing to do with the expected result to have shorter wait times. It has nothing to do with having a greater number of accessible washrooms at more convenient locations and more overall washroom capacity. That is absolutely not true.
We are trying to sugar-coat and skirt around the problem that we have here. Colleagues, this all has to do with one issue, and that is the gender issue. That’s the only reason — the one and only reason — we’re doing it. Let’s at least have the courage to admit that is what we’re doing — that we’re catering to a group of people who say, “I want to go into a washroom that I don’t belong in.” So we’ve come up with — and I support it — building a washroom with walls going up; everything is private. But let’s at least have the courage to simply call it a “washroom.”
The last suggestion was, “Let’s call it a gender-neutral washroom.” That was suggested by Public Works; let’s call it a gender-neutral washroom. To that, I said, “Then I don’t have a washroom to go to if it’s gender-neutral” — or “non-gender,” which I think is the terminology, not gender-neutral. Again, I said, “Then I don’t have a washroom to go to, because I have a gender.” So now we come up with something like “self-contained washroom unit.”
It’s more of an observation and a frustration. We are doing stuff here that is — anyway, before I get too carried away, I’ll leave it at that. I’ve made my comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Did you want to provide an answer, Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: I’ll provide a brief answer. We did come up with, after thinking about what the potential alternatives were, including what was called inclusive washrooms, which is everybody in the same washroom; exclusive washrooms, where it’s boys and girls; or what happens in your neighbourhood Starbucks, on the main floor of most people’s houses or in an airplane where you actually have a self-contained washroom. Then we got around all the issues that you just spoke about, Senator Plett, and actually were able to do it in a way that did have some efficiencies and we had some experts come and tell us about how this could actually eliminate some wait times, and we could fit all of these and sprinkle them around a bit more in the Centre Block. I think we found the right place and sometimes you find the right place when you wouldn’t have been looking for it otherwise, and I think that is the case here. Thank you for your comments.
The Chair: As a comment from the chair, I have a difficult time speaking of washrooms with sugar-coating. Just so you know, when you were saying that we’re sugar-coating the choice of words.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: First of all, I would like to thank Senator Tannas for the invitation.
There was a presentation on the efforts or results, to see how it will look visually, but also to see how much integration or space is given in this major project to the history and present-day reality of Indigenous peoples. That is a nice surprise, and it is appreciated.
Let me ask you a question about something else. We are talking about jobs. As Senator Saint-Germain said, we are talking about the current reality. However, in your projections, given that we may be reaching an emergency situation and that we have experienced a lot of realities in hybrid mode, have you made any linkages to find out what the resources we’ll need to ensure their safety, health and so on in this beautiful worksite might look like? It will be important for technology to keep pace with the reality of human resources. I imagine there have been discussions?
Ms. Labelle: There have been discussions. With respect to recommendation No. 3 on any future infrastructure, the House of Commons Information Technology Project Management Office, or ITPMO, is working with the House of Commons and is responsible for integrating this infrastructure in our future House. The work will be done in close collaboration with our colleagues in the House of Commons to ensure that everything is done to the highest standards.
What’s more, since we’re at the restoration stage and no longer in the building, and since we are opening the walls, now is the time to plan everything we’ll need and everything we can envisage for the next 50 to 75 years, to ensure that once we’ve moved, we can meet all the different scenarios.
We need to take a broader look at this. We’ll be working with them to ensure that the right technologies and standards are promoted.
Senator Carignan: I would like to make a suggestion. When we are presented with such a reorganization of plans, people tend to think that everyone has the same knowledge as we do, and specific terms are used; if it were possible to insert a small map the next time someone talks about blocks or something, it would allow us to visualize more clearly exactly where we are and what kind of building it is. Just a suggestion.
Second, I understand that this is a temporary name for this tower and that it allows you to work with the different stakeholders from a practical standpoint. However, I would just like to make sure that this is not the name that will be given to it for the next 50 years. I think these are great opportunities to pay tribute to a former Speaker or someone who was an important person for the Senate; for example, we could name a building for Raoul Dandurand or someone else.
[English]
Senator Tannas: This is about marking our territory right now, because there are a lot of moving parts and pieces in this multi-decade project. We’ve agreed as part of the overall strategy that the three buildings we will occupy will be the eastern half of the Centre Block, East Block and any building to be constructed on that corner. There are a lot of moving parts with the 338 House of Commons members, where they have to go, when they have to move and so on, that goes between Justice, Confederation, Victoria Building and so on, and when we move out. We wanted to make it clear so that anybody who is moving pieces around has to read that to-be-built place is the Senate’s building for their planning purposes and that, at a minimum, we need to be consulted if something is going to happen with that building. I quite agree, the Senate Office Complex can go away, and we can think about renaming that building appropriately when it’s done and we’re in it.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I have a quick question for Senator Tannas. Will all the self-contained washrooms have handicap-appropriate dimensions?
Senator Tannas: Good question.
Ms. Labelle: Thank you for your question, senator. They will not all be accessible stalls. There will be a certain percentage of accessible stalls to meet all the appropriate codes, universal accessibility, et cetera. They all have floor-to-ceiling full privacy, and then there will be the cabins that meet the accessibility and universal accessibility requirements.
Senator Cardozo: I have a couple of quick points. Senator Tannas and Madam Labelle, I appreciate hearing about what is happening in Block 2. I’m particularly interested in what happens to Wellington, in the hope that Wellington will be closed to traffic but open to people in the near future. I think what happens with these buildings will have some relation to what happens with Wellington Street. On the matter of the washrooms, thumbs up, thanks for doing that work on it.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, you’re proposing the adoption of the sixth report of the —
Senator Tannas: I moved the sixth report.
The Chair: Thank you. All those in favour? Everyone in favour of the adoption of the report? Carried. Thank you, Josée.
The next item relates to an amendment of Senators’ Office Management Policy regarding the use of travel points for International and Interparliamentary Affairs-related activities. Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, will now join us as witness; and Marie-Eve Belzile and Pierre Lanctôt are also present in the room to assist if need be. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
It is my understanding that Senator Saint-Germain will make opening remarks and that Jeremy will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you and welcome, Jeremy.
Colleagues, this morning, as co-chair of the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council, I am seeking your approval to amend our Senators’ Office Management Policy, to ensure that this policy is consistent with the House of Commons policy with respect to the possibility of using our offices’ travel points for inter‑parliamentary associations that hold events in Canada.
Let me give you a bit of background. Prior to November 2017, senators could use the points system when travelling within Canada on association business. However, since 2017, they can no longer charge to this travel points system travel expenses related to association activities held in the region of Parliament, or certain related expenses, such as upgrade costs, and living expenses and travel to the Canadian point of departure of the trip. Otherwise, senators cannot use these travel points to participate in association activities held in Canada.
Most recently, the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council created a subcommittee to look at the structure, governance and financial management of parliamentary associations. We looked at various suggestions for reducing the travel costs borne by the various associations and noted this disparity between the policy of the Senate and that of the House of Commons with respect to the use of travel points that I mentioned.
The purpose of the amendment this morning is therefore to ensure that all parliamentarians can use their points for association activities in Canada. The following motion was adopted on February 17 by the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council, or JIC, to request:
… both houses of Parliament that they harmonize their travel policies to allow parliamentarians to use their travel points, at their discretion, for domestic travel related to association activities.
Specifically, the amendment we are recommending for the Senators’ Office Management Policy would read as follows:
When travelling in Canada on parliamentary association business, Senators and Members of the House of Commons may use their available travel points to cover the cost of transportation. In this case, the cost of transportation is not charged to the parliamentary association’s budget.
Members may use the points system when travelling with parliamentary committees or associations. Therefore, article 7.5.2 recommends the following:
Subject to the exception below, a senator’s parliamentary association or parliamentary exchanges travel-related expenses … shall be deducted from the budget of that association or from the parliamentary exchanges’ budget when the senator is a member of an official delegation.
I stress “when the senator is a member of an official delegation.” Why? Because for many associations, delegates are recognized and admitted only if they are members of the official delegation.
a. For meetings or activities in the parliamentary district, the travel expenses are charged to the travel point system and the living expenses are charged to the living expense budget.
b. For meetings or activities held outside the parliamentary district, the following may be charged to the travel point system when travelling with a parliamentary association.
i. Fare Class Upgrades
When the association is paying for a ticket that does not correspond to the classes that the delegate would like to travel in, the delegate may obtain a fare class upgrade using their travel points.
ii. Living Expenses
When the association is only paying the transportation expenses, living expenses incurred while travelling may be reimbursed under the travel point system.
iii. Travel to Departure Points for Parliamentary Association Travel
When it is planned that all participants leave from the same Canadian departure point —
— Ottawa, for example —
— travel within Canada to reach that departure point may be charged to the travel point system if it is not covered by the parliamentary association budget. Generally, the departure location for all travel shall be the senator’s province or territory, the Parliamentary District, or a location where the senator was conducting parliamentary functions. Exceptions will be assessed where the cost is equivalent or less.
I would like to add a comment related to our previous discussions. Obviously, if we pass these amendments, we have to be very aware that this will put pressure on the budget that governs our travel, and therefore on the number of points. I think it’s important to keep that in mind to be consistent in our decision-making. That’s it, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Are there any questions or comments for Senator Saint-Germain or Mr. LeBlanc?
[English]
Senator Moodie: Senator Saint-Germain, I’m looking for clarification. When you’re a non-delegate member or what would otherwise be classified as an official guest or an official observer of the parliamentary association, would those senators, individuals or parliamentarians be allowed to use their travel points?
Senator Saint-Germain: The answer is generally “no,” because this is provided that the senator is a member of an official delegation. I do not believe that the status of official observer would be a status that would exist. With some associations, it is not possible to even attend if you’re not a member of the official delegation.
Madam Chair, with your permission, I would like to defer to Mr. LeBlanc on the status of an official observer.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: It depends upon the nature of the association. Some have observers who can attend the conference and, for example, could register directly without having to go through the auspices of an association.
We’re talking about harmonizing policies between the House and the Senate. The House’s policy doesn’t provide for any particular measure around being part of the official delegation. There hasn’t really been a large number of cases of parliamentarians under that policy who have chosen to attend activities where they’re not part of the delegation of the association; it’s not a frequent occurrence.
Senator Moodie: My understanding was that if the association is providing you with the same access — badges, booking capabilities, staying at the same hotel within the fold of the official booking group — that would be considered, in some situations, an official observer. You are declared as such, and you are hosted by the group, but you’re not a part of the delegation.
Mr. LeBlanc: In a case like that, I would say you are part of the Canadian delegation. Whether your status at that conference is that of an observer or delegate, you are still a member of the Canadian delegation.
Senator Saint-Germain: So it is when the senator is a member of an official delegation. Thank you for the clarification, Jeremy, that you can be an observer part of the delegation.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I would like it to be clear that what we are doing is harmonizing with the House of Commons, not having a special status. There should be no debate about whether an observer can participate in an event — if the observer is in the House of Commons, they can, but if they are in the Senate, they can’t. It has to be clear that the status is the same.
Senator Saint-Germain: What is clear and obvious is that if you are not allowed to attend the conference, taxpayers do not have to fund a trip; it’s as simple as that. It’s the same status; you have to be a member of the delegation, and some delegations can include observers. As the clerk, Mr. LeBlanc, pointed out, it’s not a frequent occurrence in Canada, but yes, the issue is that we need to harmonize.
The Chair: That’s fine, thank you.
[English]
Any other questions or comments? For efficiency purposes, I will just read the change to 7.5.2:
b. For meetings or activities held within Canada, travel expenses may be charged to the Travel Points System.
c. For meetings or activities held outside Canada, the following may be charged to the Travel Points System when travelling with a parliamentary association:
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
The next item concerns the budgetary surplus from the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
It is my understanding that Senator Saint-Germain will make opening remarks, and that Jeremy will assist in answering questions.
Senator Saint-Germain, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: In August 2022, the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association hosted an international conference in Halifax. Funding for the conference was provided by the Senate and the House of Commons, as well as by the provinces and territories in the form of a contribution to the Canadian Region.
After all conference-related expenses have been paid, a surplus of $340,000 remains, half of which, $170,000, represents the federal share. Since a portion of the total amount of these funds was not used for the purposes for which the funds were approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and by the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy, it must be requested that this federal share of the unused funds be returned to the Senate and the House of Commons respectively, in the usual proportion of 30% to the Senate and 70% to the House of Commons.
However, if these sums are returned, neither the Senate nor the House of Commons will be able to use them in 2023-2024, since they are associated with an expenditure for a previous year, and the budgets of parliamentary associations are governed by another administrative method. Therefore, the Joint Interparliamentary Council recommends that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy approve an approach to allow these surplus funds to be used as an appropriation to pay the federal branch’s annual contribution to the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to use the savings generated to fund other association activities, whose budgets we all know are very tight.
As this annual contribution for future years is known, the surplus funds from the conference could cover the contributions for the next two financial years and part of the contribution for 2025-2026. The savings generated by using the surplus funds as an appropriation for this annual contribution over the next three financial years would remain within the envelope of the Joint Interparliamentary Council and would therefore be available to finance other association activities; this represents approximately $75,000 for each of the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 and approximately $20,000 for 2025-2026.
Jeremy and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Forest: If I understand correctly, our financial rules allow us to have funds earmarked for future expenses?
Senator Saint-Germain: These are the rules of the Joint Interparliamentary Council. We have a specific fund for the activities of interparliamentary associations and we are not subject to the system of lapsed funds of the public services and the two houses of Parliament.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: I think Mr. LeBlanc would like to complete my answer.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. LeBlanc: I would like to clarify that this is in the very specific case of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It’s not just federal funds; the federal government’s funds for managing the conference, with the provinces and territories, are in a separate fund in this case.
Senator Forest: That’s what allows us to do it.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, you move:
That the Joint Interparliamentary Council be permitted to use the federal portion of the surplus from the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in August 2022, to pay for the annual contribution of the Canadian Branch to the Canadian Region of the CPA and to use the savings generated to finance other association activities.
Senator Saint-Germain: So moved.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.
[Translation]
The next item on the agenda is a motion to extend the mandate of the Institutional Credit Card Working Group.
[English]
Would someone like to move the motion to extend to June 2024? Senator Carignan moves:
That, notwithstanding the decision of CIBA adopted on Thursday, March 9, 2023, the date for the final report of the Advisory Working Group on the Senate Corporate Credit Card be extended from June 30, 2023, to June 30, 2024.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. The next item is from the Subcommittee on Communications, concerning accessibility and broadcasting.
Mélisa Leclerc, Director of Communications; Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant; and Julia Zayed, Senate Accessibility Officer will join us as witnesses, as will David Vatcher, Director of Information Services. Pierre Lanctôt and Josée Greer are also present in the room.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Smith will make opening remarks, and that Mélisa, Shaila, Julia and David will assist in answering questions.
Senator Smith, the floor is yours.
Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the Subcommittee on Communications’ first report, which includes an update on the Senate Accessibility Plan Progress Report and a recommendation regarding the Senate’s broadcasting operations and infrastructure.
You have all received a copy of our report, along with the progress report on the Senate Accessibility Plan and a brief note on broadcasting. I won’t repeat all this information but would like to highlight the following.
Regarding the Senate Accessibility Plan Progress Report, your subcommittee heard that 9 of the 12 objectives scheduled to be completed in 2023 are in progress, and the remaining ones will be started this summer. Your subcommittee is pleased with this progress and reminds CIBA that an annual progress report will be presented in December for approval, as required by the Accessible Canada Act.
Should senators have questions on this update, I am accompanied by our group, including Julia Zayed, the Senate’s Accessibility Officer, as well as Mélisa Leclerc, Director of Communications.
Second, your subcommittee met with officials from the Senate Administration to review the consequences of downgrading the Senate’s current committee broadcasting model to the House of Commons’ webcasting model. Broadcasting is what we now have for our seven committee rooms. The Senate’s televised committee meetings are of a very high quality that we can all be proud of. Other legislatures from around the world have noticed.
The broadcasting capabilities offer multiple camera angles, the speaking senator’s name and affiliation, and the witnesses’ names and organizations represented as well as the subject matter being discussed. That provides context to Canadians watching and the media covering the committee.
The quality of our broadcasting meets the technical requirements to air on CPAC. This is an important factor to consider, since we want to reach the Canadians from all communities.
Webcasting, on the other hand, is more utilitarian. The committee rooms are equipped with two or three cameras with no simultaneous manoeuvrability. This provides a one-dimension view of the proceedings.
Transforming two committee rooms to webcasting would save the Senate approximately $100,000 per year. This saving, I’ll concede, is a considerable amount of money; however, we should keep in mind that our purpose and goal is to reach as many Canadians as we can.
Internet access has, historically, not been easily available to rural or Indigenous communities. As Muriel McQueen Fergusson, the first female Speaker of the Senate said many years ago, committees are the Senate’s heart and soul. Broadcasting is consistent with our values, it’s consistent with our current practices and it’s consistent with decisions this committee made in May and December 2019.
For these reasons, your subcommittee is strongly recommending that we continue with the current broadcasting of Senate proceedings.
I will add that your subcommittee will be looking very carefully at technological developments that could provide more cost-effective solutions as we move forward.
I would be pleased to take any questions you might have. As stated, I am joined by some of our administration people who can help with the technical aspects.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith. Are there questions or comments for this group? All right.
I assume you are moving the first report of the Subcommittee —
Senator Smith: May I have one comment? The members are highly aware of the challenges we face in moving forward and the costs. One of the things we discussed was doing a three- to five-year projection. I don’t believe in 10-year projections. I’ve been around business long enough to know that people disappear. I hope I’m alive in 10 years. But if we do more of a short-term plan, it might prove to have higher costs included, but it will give us more versatility in terms of analyzing what our other options are so we don’t put ourselves in a box or a strange place we can’t get out of.
I encourage all of our members to think about the good things that we do. If we’re truly interested in reaching out to all of our constituents, which includes many people in different locations in the North and in the more regional territories that don’t have this access, but with what we do, we provide them with access.
It’s a great way of promoting ourselves, also.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Smith:
That the first report of the Subcommittee on Communications be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
With item 12, there is an inconsistency in the French and English versions of the document that was provided, so we will come back with the correct versions at another time. Just so you know, this item is just postponed to another meeting.
Item 13 is the transfer of specialized equipment from Public Services and Procurement Canada to the Senate. This presentation will be followed by time for questions. Josée Labelle will provide a quick overview of the item.
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as per the requirements of the Senate Procurement Policy and the delegation of financial authorities, an expense initiation is requested for specialized building equipment maintenance for this fiscal year whose estimated costs are $145,000. This is in addition to the amount that was previously by approved by CIBA on March 30 of this year, and this would represent a total annual amount estimated at $321,900. The previously approved amount was $176,900.
PSPC is our designated custodian of the Parliamentary Precinct that provides standard building services at Crown‑owned and leased locations for the Senate. Anything above and beyond the basic requirements for office buildings — so core and shell are base building — should be paid for by the client or tenant, as per PSPC’s additional building services policy.
Although there is a past practice of doing so, PSPC has informed PSD that it is not, nor has it previously, been funded to pay for maintenance of tenants’ specialized equipment and components. PSPC and the Senate have therefore started collaborating now to ensure that the responsibility and related funding are reassigned to the appropriate organization. This will eventually be documented in a memorandum of understanding between the two organizations.
PSPC has agreed to compromise for 2023-24 and continue paying for maintenance contracts of certain specialized equipment if the Senate were willing to identify some contracts that it would start paying for moving forward. With that said and to avoid any risk to the Senate, Property and Services Directorate proposes to transition right away the maintenance of two categories of equipment. One, where the risk to the Senate operations is significant if the equipment were to fail — for example, the uninterruptible power supplies, or UPSs, that support the Senate Chamber and the Senate committee rooms at the SCB and RCR at 1 Wellington — that would be estimated at $70,000. Two, where the Senate is paying for maintenance of some of the equipment at one building but not another — for example, specialized HVAC and fire alarm pre-action systems — that is estimated at $75,000.
The standard building services for office accommodation is water-based for fire-suppression systems; however, false alarms releasing water could cause irreparable damage to Senate assets. The Senate would pay for an additional fee for the pre-action system, which is a two-stage fire-prevention trigger alarm system.
Property and Services Directorate does not have a budget for these additional building and equipment maintenance fees of $145,000. We will see if some funds can be reallocated due to vacancies this year. If PSD cannot cover the entire charge, we would work with our financial colleagues to temporarily reallocate funds from other budgets for this year.
Essentially, PSD is seeking approval to authorize the Senate Administration to proceed with the expense initiation for the additional sole-source contracts with PSPC for the provision of specialized building equipment and maintenance fees for this fiscal year.
The Chair: Are there any comments for Josée?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I see that, once again, these are additional costs that will be billed to the Senate and that are related to the fact that we are in temporary accommodations.
Would it be possible, especially when we report, to clearly identify all these additional costs and possibly negotiate a special budget that would allow us, when we report on our administration and the increase in costs, to make it clear that this is not a desired situation, but rather one that we have to accept, and that these costs are not the result of requests from the Senate, but rather costs that are being imposed on us as part of the refurbishment of the Parliament Building?
I am asking this question as much for the sake of good management and clarification of our budget breakdown as for the sake of accountability to members of both houses and to taxpayers.
I would like us to be able to think about identifying and isolating all of this expenditure.
The Chair: Is that a comment you’re making?
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s a comment and a request.
The Chair: Ms. Labelle, do you want to answer the question?
Ms. Labelle: That’s an excellent observation. In fact, we didn’t have uninterruptible power supplies at our previous location, in the Centre Block, because we didn’t have television broadcasting at that time. There is some new equipment in the current temporary context, but it will still be there in the permanent context.
I want to make that distinction; we can certainly take note of all the equipment, but it’s really because we’re in a new special situation with uninterruptible power supplies.
Senator Saint-Germain: My comment also applies to all the expenses we have to incur because of this status as a temporary tenant of the building.
The Chair: Ms. Legault would also like to give an alternative solution.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: In the budget exercise, we will be able to clearly distinguish the financial information relating to specialized equipment for television broadcasting. We would be happy to draft this specific section, and senators will be able to decide how to deal with this information.
Senator Forest: That is an excellent suggestion. You have to remember that we chose to move here temporarily, to avoid the very significant costs that would have been incurred in refurbishing the East Block if we had stayed there. Moving here was also an economically advantageous choice in terms of overall expenditure. However, it’s an excellent idea to break down the expenses that are incurred as a result of this choice, for the sake of transparency and relevant information.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thanks for that excellent suggestion, Senator Saint-Germain. I think there’s another important reason to do this, and it is so that automatically when we return to Centre Block, these costs are flipped back. We resume the situation that was before, they aren’t lost and we don’t absorb these costs into the future. Because this could become a permanent transfer from the Senate where there was a previous arrangement and understanding that could possibly and should resume.
Is it clear to you that this would flip back?
Ms. Labelle: Thank you for your question, senator. The argument with taking on these costs is really for specialized areas that are a client request. I clearly understand the reasoning behind PSPC’s difference between the base building maintenance contracts and the client or specialized building contract requests. However, this is not something that we foresee will go away when we move back into our permanent locations.
Senator Dalphond: I understand we are negotiating a memorandum of understanding with PSPC. That should be part of it and it should have a clause clearly about it. I appreciate both suggestions. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: I’m just saying these should be capitalized and not expenses going forward. It’s equipment and the estimated useful life going back must be five years. Equipment gets obsolete very quickly, amortized over 5 or 10 years. I don’t know if there is an answer to that.
Ms. Labelle: Thank you for your question. Currently, there are two things. There is the actual asset but there’s the maintenance contract to maintain that asset, so it’s kind of twofold. Currently, we have not officially transferred those assets. We’re waiting on the MOU and everything. We do want to make sure there is a contract in place to ensure that risk is not encountered to those critical pieces of equipment.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to continue with sole source contracts with Public Services and Procurement Canada and related Expense Initiation for the provision of additional specialized equipment maintenance for the 2023-24 fiscal year, whose aggregate costs are estimated at $145,000.
That the amount be funded internally via budget reallocation if need be.
It is moved by Senator Dalphond. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour of tabling the seventeenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure on the decisions taken by the steering committee, on behalf of the Committee on Internal Economy, since our last meeting.
This report is presented for your information. Do you have any questions or comments? Thank you.
[English]
Senators, as this is our last CIBA meeting before the summer break, I would like to wish you all a wonderful summer. I would also like to thank our staff. Please know that your hard work does not go unnoticed. I know I speak for all senators when I say how much we appreciate your support and dedication. We hope that everyone has a great summer.
(The committee adjourned.)